MURRIETA: Legal scrap heats up over measure

Legal maneuvering is intensifying over a voters' initiative to ban red-light enforcement cameras that is on the November ballot in Murrieta.

A nonprofit civil liberties organization this week came to the defense of the proponents, who are fighting a lawsuit filed to stop the initiative.

Also, one of the initiative's backers announced that he had filed a campaign violation allegation against the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, Murrieta resident Steve Flynn, as well as the attorney who filed the suit.

The
Pacific Justice Institute
, a San Diego-based conservative nonprofit that defends civil liberties, has agreed to support the initiative proponents in fighting the lawsuit.

"If they can do this, there would never be another initiative in California," he said. "The average person just doesn't have the money to fight (lawsuits)."

Diana Serafin, who led the signature-gathering campaign to get the "Prohibition of Automated Traffic Enforcement Systems" measure on the ballot, had said she would appear in court if necessary to fight the suit.

Supporters of the initiative contend the red-light enforcement cameras placed at three busy intersections in Murrieta actually create a hazard by causing drivers to stop abruptly, causing rear-end collisions.

They also contend being ticketed by mail deprives people of the opportunity to discuss alleged violations with an officer at the scene.

Steve Flynn, a former Murrieta public safety and traffic commissioner who promoted use of the cameras, says they have proven effective in reducing the dangerous practice of running red lights. He contends the automated systems have saved lives.

"The truth is Diana and her crowd are losing the battle," Flynn said. "The numbers are going to keep proving that the cameras are doing their job."

Peter Lepiscopo
, an attorney affiliated with the Pacific Justice Institute, appeared in court to represent the proponents and asked to postpone the hearing so it could be heard before a judge rather than a court commissioner. The hearing has been rescheduled for Wednesday.

"It's trying to stop an initiative even before it goes to the voters," he said of the lawsuit. "If there's some kind of problem with it constitutionally, they can (challenge) that after it passes. ... Otherwise, we would have litigation over every single initiative that comes before the voters."

Bell, however, said there are situations when ballot measures can be challenged before they go to a vote.

"There is a legal standard and we think we meet the standard for what is called pre-election review," he said. "The argument for challenging it in advance is that, if it's something clearly beyond the power of the local electorate to do, it's just a waste of money to be on the ballot."